Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19961015Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Paulson, Marolt, Richards and Waggaman present. PROCLAMATION - Environmental Health Award to Tom Dunlop Mayor Bennett read a proclamation honoring Tom Dunlop, environmental health director, for receiving the highest award from the Colorado Department of Health. CITIZEN COMMENTS 1. Bill Stirling appealed to Council to reconsider the entrance to Aspen ballot issue. Stirling said there is a lot of confusion surrounding this issue and there has not been enough time to put an issue with such serious ramifications on the ballot. Stirling said it has been discussed for so many years by so many citizens is a reason not to rush it on the ballot. This issue is how people view their town. Stirling said this open space has framed the entrance to town for decades. Stirling said open space is a philosophy and part of a culture. Stirling said there is a Supreme Court decision stating if parks lands are to be taken for a highway, they can only be taken if there is no other alternative route for that highway. Stirling said the issue is confused by the addition of the rail corridor. Nothing will be determined by voting for this rail corridor. Stirling said the Rio Grande right-of- way already exists and the city is pursuing purchase of this right-of-way for future use. Stirling said this is not an election about trains and a yes vote does not guarantee rail. Stirling said a lot happens on the Marolt property; Council should reconsider the use of this property on the November ballot. Mayor Bennett agreed there is a lot of confusion on this issue; however this issue has been discussed for 26 years generically and specifically for 18 months. Mayor Bennett said the confusion comes from the community’s inability to make up their mind. Mayor Bennett stated Council discussed this particular ballot language for 8 hours with a lot of public input. This was from a citizen committee recommendation, and they spent 8 months on the issue. Mayor Bennett said he does not feel spending more time will gain the community anything. This vote is letting the electorate have a direct effect on an environmental impact statement a preferred alternative. Mayor Bennett said this alternative is not taking one more square foot of open space than any other alternative under discussion. Mayor Bennett said he feels the entrance to Aspen will be enhanced by this alternative. Mayor Bennett said the congested S-curves are not a humane entrance to Aspen. This alternative is 1 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 moving the highway from one place to another and reclaiming with vegetation the old route of the highway. The new route will have open space on both sides. Stirling said the proposed corridor cuts intact open space. Mayor Bennett said the Rio Grande right-of-way into Aspen it not a viable rail route into town as it misses every population center people are going to which would kill the economics of the system. That right-of-way works great for down valley. Mayor Bennett said 5 different engineering firms have stated this railroad is doable and feasible and will pay for itself in operations and can be successful. However, this will be lost on the Rio Grande right-of-way. Mayor Bennett said the ballot language itself is not confusing; this is voting yes to valley-wide rail and is the essential first step towards that. Councilman Marolt stated he does not agree with the ballot question because it encompasses too much at once and is out of phase with regard to construction and planning. Councilman Marolt said he would prefer to find out first if voters approve the use of the Marolt property before there are added issues. Councilman Marolt moved to reconsider the wording on the ballot initiative and possibly put this off until another time; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Councilman Paulson said 60 days is not enough time to make the right choice. This is a critical piece of property; it is the entrance to Aspen. Councilman Paulson said the choices we make now, people will have to live with for years and years. Councilman Paulson said Aspen has always stood for open space. Councilman Paulson said building a new highway does not solve the transportation problems; rail needs to come first. As soon as a highway is built that looks like a highway, it will become a highway and rail will be forgotten. Councilman Paulson said this is not the right question to ask; several questions should be asked so that people can give a clear choice as to what the community wants. John Worcester, city attorney, reminded Council this election is being held pursuant to the Uniform Election Code. There is no provision for removing a ballot issue. Worcester said Council can cancel an election 25 days before an election if there are no other issues on the ballot and no candidates. This is less than 25 days and there are other issues on the ballot. Worcester told Council he does not know whether these ballots could not be counted. Worcester said if people vote on this issue, it will be counted sometime. 2 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 Councilwoman Richards said when she was elected, Council inherited a non-transit oriented 4-lane approval across Marolt. This was not constructed because the ISTEA legislation changed and Aspen is a non-attainment area for clean air. The city has been cleaning up their streets and is close to being taken off the list. The ISTEA legislation is up for reenactment. Aspen has an opportunity to get in as a new starts project if there is solid community direction. If not, Aspen will be out of the funding for the next 6 years. Councilwoman Richards said there are two irreconcilable sides to this debate, which is why it has not been solved. Councilwoman Richards said this is a compromise. There are people who want only a 4-lane with no transit orientation. And there are those who say nothing ever must happen on Marolt property. At some point the community has to make a decision. Councilwoman Richards said the Marolt is sacred open space; however, this is an opportunity to save old Snowmass Canyon and to have a working rail line to Brush Creek which can help a down valley system. Councilwoman Richards said she has to look at the greater vision and where can there be compromises. Councilwoman Richards said if there are no compromises, this issue will not go anywhere as it has not gone anywhere in 25 years. Councilwoman Waggaman said no matter when the vote on this issue is held, people will be studying it to the last minute. Councilwoman Waggaman said there is a lot of interest state-wide on rail. CDOT is making a presentation in Glenwood on their vision of rail for the state. Councilwoman Waggaman said this is the first step and the details still have to be worked out. Aspen cannot get CDOT to spend any more time working on this program until they know they can use the Marolt corridor for transportation. Councilwoman Waggaman said she likes people seeing the Marolt barn as they enter town so that they know this is a historic town and passengers can get a sense of history. Councilman Marolt agreed the city has to go ahead and do something and get the entrance to Aspen resolved. Councilman Marolt said he feels the ballot issue is too much to absorb. Mayor Bennett said every time the community nears a decision, the process is stopped by groups whose preferred plan is not considered. Mayor Bennett read the question, “May the City of Aspen allow use of Marolt for two-lane divided parkway with light rail?” That is all the question asks, the rest is a list of environmental mitigations for Marolt. Mayor Bennett said if the city has to wait another 5, 10, or 3 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 more years, they will miss an extraordinary opportunity. There is strong leadership in CDOT; Aspen has more friends in Congress with support for what Aspen is doing. Mayor Bennett said Aspen can afford the $52 million to get rail to the airport with 100 percent local funding and 0 new taxes. Mayor Bennett said the $52 million is 41 percent of the total cost to build rail from Rubey Park to downtown Glenwood Springs. This is an incredible opportunity to get this project done. If this issue is put off, the next ISTEA legislation bill comes up and if Aspen is not ready in January, there will be no federal funding for at least 5 years. Councilman Marolt said 1/3 of the voters do not want a tunnel and this is part of the ballot language. Councilwoman Richards said the cut and cover tunnel was something requested from citizens groups as a good element of the plan. Councilwoman Richards said the traffic is getting worse; there are more and more down valley developments. Councilwoman Richards said Aspen has a chance to define their future in this election. Councilman Paulson said this issue has been debated for 30 years because no one had the right solution. Councilman Paulson said he is against the highway going across Marolt property. Councilman Paulson said he does not want an existing highway being replaced with another highway across the Marolt property; two lanes of highway across Marolt is not acceptable to this community. Councilmembers Marolt and Paulson in favor; Councilmembers Richards, Waggaman and Mayor Bennett opposed. Motion NOT carried. 2. Si Coleman said the essence of the vote is to give Council a right to convey the use of this land. Coleman asked that Council state its priority for rail. Councilwoman Waggaman moved that after this ballot issue wins, the building of a valley-wide rail system will be Council’s #1 priority; seconded by Mayor Bennett. All in favor with the exception of Councilman Marolt who stated he would not participate in this vote. Motion carried. 3. Richard Cohen thanked Council for their support of the citizens parkway approach. Cohen urged Council to make clear their support for extending the rail to Brush Creek. Cohen said this is the moment the task force worked for, and they knew they had to come to a decision because of all the outside elements that were 4 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 coming together. If the city does not act now, they will be in the same place for decades which may cause detriment to the community. 4. Jeanette Darnauer, representing the coalition of Aspen non-profit s, told Council they are opposing state amendment #11, which would remove the property tax exemption for non-profit organizations. Ms. Darnauer said this would have a devastating effect on Aspen’s non-profit organizations and Churches in Pitkin county. This will not decrease other’s property taxes. Ms. Darnauer said this is an attack on the quality of life in Aspen. Ms. Darnauer said some services will be impacted because these organizations cannot absorb the taxes within their budgets. COUNCIL COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Richards reminded everyone of the CORE/transportation energy forum to be held in Glenwood this Friday, October 18th. RFTA will be running buses to this forum. 2. Councilwoman Richards announced the Co lorado Association of Ski Towns will be meeting in Aspen October 18. The president of the Ski company, Vail Associates, Club 20 and Colorado Municipal League will be present and working on legislation to allow the nature of CDOT to be more flexible and cover transit. 3. Councilwoman Waggaman said she is going to Denver this Friday to work on the rail passenger study for the state. This is an indication how the state is moving towards rail. 4. Councilman Paulson said he would prefer not to vote on the Bell Mountain extension until after the election. Councilman Paulson said the Bell Mountain and superblock projects are tied together and the community needs to know about it with regards to the transportation problems in town. Councilman Paulson said the city wants to keep the traffic levels to those of 1993 while voting to build a new highway and allow more traffic into town and have a parking garage. Councilman Paulson said he also does not like waiver of fees for this extension because the city is a partner. Councilman Paulson said this can be addressed at the public hearing. Stan Clauson, community development department, pointed out the public hearing will not be until after the election. CONSENT CALENDAR 5 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 Councilwoman Richards moved to read Ordinance #38, and #39, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #38 (Series of 1996) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO WIT: SECTION 26.28 PARKING STANDARDS FOR ZONE DISTRICT; SECTION 26.28.080 CONDITIONAL USE IN THE -30 ZONE DISTRICT; SECTION 26.31.020 CHARACTERISTICS OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES AND ACCESS TO STREET OR ALLEY SECTION 26.32.030 REQUIRED OFF- STREET PARKING SPACES; SECTION 26.40.090 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS; SECTION 26.68.040 STREAM MARGIN REVIEW; SECTION 26.102.040 GMQS EXEMPTION FOR COMMERCIAL EXPANSION ORDINANCE #39 (Series of 1996) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THE 1993 LODGE GMQS ALLOTMENT AND VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3, SERIES OF 1993, AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 51, SERIES OF 1994, AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE NO 15, SERIES OF 1995, AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 16, SERIES OF 1996 FOR THE BELL MOUNTAIN REDEVELOPMENT, 720 EAST COOPER AVENUE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO was read by the city clerk Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Marolt. The consent calendar is: 6 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 · Minutes - September 3, 5, 24, 1996 · Resolution #56, 1996 - Contract Approval Automated Parking Ticket Mgmt · Ordinance #38, 1996 - Text Amendments - Land use Code Clarifications · Resolution #60, 1996 - Holy Cross Easement for Water Treatment Plant · Ordinance #39, 1996 - Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS Extension · Resolution #58, 1996 - Approving Expenditures from 1/2 Center Transportation Tax · Resolution #57, 1996 - Approving Ski Company 50th Anniversary Banners Councilman Paulson said he feels the Ski Company missed a large marketing ploy by not pricing the ski tickets at $50 for their 50th anniversary. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; Waggaman, yes; Marolt, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 1996 - Late Charges Utility Payments Doug Smith, finance director, pointed out this ordinance corrects an inequity in the current utility billing system. There is no incentive for people to pay their bills on time; no penalty is assessed for late payments. Smith said he left the amount of the fee, 12 or 18 percent, open for Council discussion. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards asked how the customers will be notified. Smith said the utility bills have space for notes and this will be part of the bill for the next two months. Councilwoman Richards said she would like this to become effective after the first notice. Councilwoman Waggaman agreed with the warning. Councilwoman Waggaman said the city is not a credit company but is a service to the people. Councilwoman Waggaman said she prefers 12 percent rather than 18 percent. Mayor Bennett agreed about 12 percent but said he is bothered by the $3 charge. 7 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #36, Series of 1996, on second reading with 12 percent for past due balance and deleting the $3 minimum charge and having staff produce adequate notice about the change in policy; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Marolt, yes; Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 1996 - Code Amendment - Veterinarian Clinic Stan Clauson, community development director, told Council the current land use code does not include veterinary clinic as an allowed use in any of the zones. The applicant is requesting a text amendment to add definition of a veterinary clinic and to allow this as a conditional use in the office zone district. Staff proposes to include this use in S/C/I and RR zones. Clauson reminded Council when they approved this at first reading, they were concerned about the conditional use in the office zone. One concern was waste disposal. The city code does not address the disposal of infectious waste. The state health code covers disposal. Clauson said waste should be addressed in the definition of a veterinary clinic and that has been added to the definition. Clauson said neither the state nor city regulate medical or veterinary clinics. The proposed text amendments would allow veterinary clinics as a conditional use and requires review of a specific application by P & Z. One review standard is, “the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise vibrations, odor on surrounding properties. The Commission may impose conditions to mitigate these impacts including specific standards for noise, odor, sanitation and so forth, and may require enforcement of specific conditions by city departments.” Clauson reminded Council they requested considering an amendment of the definition to allow only treatment of small animals. Clauson said a clinic that treated large animals, like horses, could be accommodated in RR zone, which has animal husbandry among its permitted uses. Clauson said this should be part of the conditional use approval rather than the definition. Clauson said Council questioned whether prohibiting 24-hour emergency service would lessen the impact on neighbors. Clauson said staff amended the proposed definition to: “A veterinary clinic means an enclosed facility within a building or portion thereof for the care of treatment of animal, where boarding of healthy animals is prohibited and adequate 8 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 provisions are made to avoid any and all adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood which might otherwise result from noise, odors, waste and the like”. Clauson said in order to approve the text amendment, Council must find the amendment is compatible with the surrounding zone districts considering existing landuse and neighborhood characteristics. The office zone includes and abuts commercial, lodge, single and multi-family and residential uses. Clauson noted P & Z could consider site specific factors in order to determine if a veterinary clinic is compatible with surrounding uses and if the impacts could be adequately mitigated. Clauson recommended approval of the text amendments based on the finds that these meet or exceed all applicable development standards and are consistent with goals and elements of the AACP, that they will allow a prohibited use to operate in certain zone districts but only if P & Z determines that the use would be compatible with surrounding uses and are consistent with public welfare. Clauson said approving this ordinance would give P & Z the ability to have a conditional use review of a veterinary clinic in office, S/C/I or RR zones at which time they would assess the impacts of a specific location. If Council does not believe there are any circumstances that would warrant a veterinary clinic in the office zone, they should not approve or amend the ordinance by deleting the office zone. Joe Wells, representing the applicant, showed Council a map of the 3 proposed zones for a veterinary clinic. Wells noted that the RR zone is only the Aspen club and Benedict office building. The S/C/I is the post office and 10 or 12 privately owned sites, typically rental sites. Wells said the office zone is generally located along Main street, a large volume corridor, which is bordered on both sides by residential zones. Wells said a conditional use review with conditions is the appropriate way to allow this veterinary clinic. Wells said the applicants feel they can build a structure that will not allow noise to seep out. This may not be affordable; however, the point is the city should set the standard and the applicant can determine whether they can meet that standard. Wells said ordinary office waste will be handled the same as everyone else. Medical waste is kept inside the building at all times, never let inside a dumpster, and picked up by a waste management company that handles the hospital’s waste. Wells said he feels there is a venting solution. The hours of operation should be addressed in the conditional use hearing as parking should be addressed. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. 9 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 Joe Krabacher, adjacent property owner, stated this property is no longer under contract to the applicant. Krabacher said the land use code, Section 26.52.030, requires demonstration of an owners right to apply for the development application. Krabacher said it may not be proper for Council to review this amendment. If Council does want to adopt this, they need to send any amendments back to P & Z. Wells stated this is a code amendment request filed jointly by the property owner and the applicant. Clauson said this is a code amendment. A development application that would follow would need to be signed by the owner of the property. This code amendment has been approved by P & Z and forwarded to Council. John Worcester, city attorney, said this ordinance is not directed towards any specific property and is a legislative act. Worcester said the sections referred to by Krabacher allow an applicant to do what the staff normally does and does not preclude Council from passing an ordinance to rezone if it otherwise meets the standards for rezoning. Councilwoman Waggaman pointed out the city has to have services people need available where they can get to them. Councilwoman Waggaman said if a veterinary clinic is allowed in the office zone, there should be stricter conditions for this use. These type of conditions would be small animals only, not 24-hour emergency service, tell how many overnight kennels on premises, how large the practice is anticipated to be (i.e. numbers of veterinarians), show the ventilation for kennels and observation rooms, appropriate parking to be available, the owner would be required to clean up litter on their property and adjacent grounds. These conditions would allow someone to apply for a conditional use for a specific site and to be reviewed. Krabacher reiterated that under the submission standards, a development application may be initiated only be 50 percent of the owners of the property. The application originally submitted was filed for Dr. Rappaport, not the owner of the property. Mayor Bennett said he has heard the legislative ability of Council cannot be limited. Worcester said the code does not cut off the ability for staff and Council to consider rezoning portions of the city. Krabacher reminded Council the Stapleton office building was approved by granting a variances on the minimum lot size, the minimum width of the lot, and the parking. The applicants also received a special review bonus to increase the FAR. Krabacher said he is concerned about having 24 hour emergency service in the office zone. 10 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 Krabacher said there should be standards in the ordinance to address the waste issue. Krabacher said there are diseases spread through feces that may be left outside and waste regulations may not apply to this. Krabacher said he does not think a building can be soundproofed. There will be noise whenever the doors are opened. Krabacher reminded Council there are two employee units located in the basement of this building and no one has addressed the impacts on these units. Krabacher said the key standard in the code is whether this is compatible with the adjacent zone districts. Krabacher said he does not feel this is compatible with the R-6 zone district. Joan Bayeaux, Victoria Square, stated she and her husband are against this amendment. Mrs. Bayeaux said this should not be in a residential area. Aspen is very protective about the environment and putting a veterinary clinic in a residential area is not environmental. There will not be adequate parking. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Richards agreed this is not an appropriate use for the office zone district. Councilwoman Richards said she would support a text amendment in the S/C/I. Councilman Marolt agreed he could support this in the S/C/I zone. Councilwoman Richards said the conditions outlined by Councilwoman Waggaman should be added to the code amendment. Councilman Paulson said he has not heard anything to convince him to change his vote from first reading. Councilwoman Waggaman said she feels a person has a right to prove that they can operate a clinic with the conditions listed above. Mayor Bennett said this is a difficult issue. Mayor Bennett pointed out the definition of veterinary clinic includes “avoid any and all adverse impacts of any type”. However serious concerns have been expressed by many letters. Clauson noted that P & Z members favored S/C/I and RR; those members who voted no indicated they could support the use in the S/C/I and RR zones. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt Ordinance #37, Series of 1996, amended to add veterinary clinic as a conditional use S/C/I and RR zone districts only with the conditions regarding odors, waste and noise as outlined by the planning office; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes; Marolt, yes; Paulson, no; Waggaman, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried. 11 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 Councilwoman Waggaman moved to direct staff to draft an ordinance allowing veterinary clinics in the office zone with a list of specific conditions; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. Mayor Bennett and Councilwoman Waggaman yes; Councilmembers Richards, Paulson and Marolt no. Motion NOT carried. APPEAL OF INTERPRETATION ORDINANCE #1 HOUSING REPLACEMENT Stan Clauson, community development director, told Council this project is the Day subdivision which proposes to demolish buildings with 24 bedrooms. Staff was concerned whether the applicant was meeting the provision of the resident multi- family housing replacement program. Clauson cited the requirements of this section for minimum replacement, “In the event of the demolition of resident multi-family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than 50 percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. The replacement housing shall be configured in such a way as to replace 50 percent of the bedrooms that are lost of working resident housing by demolition and a minimum of 50 percent of the replacement housing shall be above natural grade”. Clauson noted the emphasis on construct replacement housing of 50 percent of both the bedrooms and square footage. Clauson said the request is to demolish 3 buildings and 24 bedrooms. Clauson told Council he interpreted this that the applicants would be required to construct new replacement housing for these bedrooms. The initial proposal was an existing 12 unit building be deed restricted and be used as a substitute for that reconstruction. Clauson said the applicants told staff they reviewed this project with then-staff Leslie Lamont, who told them this deed restriction proposal was all right. There is an October 11 letter from Ms. Lamont detailing her involvement with this project. Clauson told Council there is no formal record of meetings or understandings reached with the applicant. Clauson said staff feels the replacement ordinance is very important to stem the loss of working resident units. Bob Nevins, community development department, showed Council what is existing on site; one building with 20 bedrooms, building with 4 bedrooms and building with 12 bedrooms for a total of 36 bedrooms of multi- family resident housing. There is a 4 bedroom owners apartment and a detached residence with 2 bedrooms. Nevins told Council Ordinance #1 eliminates owners residences and single family units. Nevins said there are 36 bedrooms and staff would like to see 50 percent, or 18 bedrooms, preserved. The AACP calls for 60 12 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 percent of the work force to live up valley. Nevins said the applicant had the ability to deed restrict 18 bedrooms on site. Nevins said he and former staff planner Leslie Lamont do not disagree on the method of mitigation but do differ on the number of bedrooms to be maintained on site. Nevins said 3 other projects have been approved that meet this requirement under Ordinance #1. The Carriage Way project constructed new bedrooms that were required. The Mocklin proposal deed restricted units to meet this requirement. The 100 Park Avenue also met the bedrooms of affordable housing requirements. Nevins said the issue for the Day project is how many bedrooms need to be provided on site, 12 or 18. Nevins said the applicant is proposing to construct 4 new townhomes and to deed restrict the building with 12 bedrooms. Clauson said what the applicants can do on site is determined by zoning and by GMQS. The applicants want to construct 4 four-bedroom townhouses. In order to do that, they need to demolish 3 buildings. They then propose to deed restrict a 12 bedroom building. Staff is saying this is not adequate. The ordinance states one has to replace 50 percent of what is torn down. Dave Tolen, housing office told Council they reviewed this application for the size and appropriateness of the units as replacement units. Tolen said Board did not feel it was their role to interpret Ordinance #1 and how many bedrooms should be replaced. Glenn Horn, representing the applicant, told Council the applicants and he have been working on this project for about 18 months and have been trying to do a project consistent with the city Codes and the direction received from staff. The Days have provided free market affordable housing in this location for over 30 years. Horn reminded Council the objectives established for Ordinance #1 were to reduce the demand for affordable housing in the community, preserve the existing private housing stock that was used as de facto affordable housing, and to construct new affordable housing. Horn said Ordinance #1 was intended to a be a multi-family housing demolition and replacement ordinance. Demolition of units triggers Ordinance #1 so there is some ratio to replace units. Horn said the ordinance requires a property owner to replace 50 percent of the bedrooms that are demolished on site. The ordinance also requires 50 percent of the floor area that is demolished be replaced. The ordinance does not require applying 13 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 the 50 percent ratio to an entire project or site. The ordinance is clear that demolition is the key that triggers these ratios. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told Council they contacted Dave Mylar, special counsel to the city in drafting Ordinance #1. Kaufman submitted a letter from Mylar stated he agrees with the applicant’s interpretation. Kaufman quoted, “The ordinance should not be read so narrowly as to preclude the preservation and restriction of existing resident multi-family housing as an alternative thereby requiring one to tear down existing multi-family housing because the word construct is used”. Kaufman said staff’s memorandum said they interpret the word “construct” to mean actually build, which would require tearing down units. Kaufman told Council they also talked to Tom Baker, the city planner at the time of drafting Ordinance #1. Kaufman submitted a letter from Baker agreeing with the applicant’s interpretation. Kaufman quoted from Baker’s letter, “The buying down of existing units, for their deed restriction is something that was contemplated at the time of adoption of Ordinance #1 and is something that has continually been done.” Baker disagrees with the planning office interpretation that the term construction means new construction rather than the historic staff interpretation which included deed restricting existing units. Baker also states, “the planning office never considered the deed restricting of existing units to constitute demolition for the purpose of Ordinance #1”. Baker also stated, “Deed restricting units was a policy we pursued and not an action which required mitigation”. Horn said there have been two projects under Ordinance #1. Mocklin was not an Ordinance #1 project; however, the Mocklin project affirmed a city position that existing free market multi-family units may be deed restricted to satisfy the city’s affordable housing requirements. Horn said the Carriage Way was one building that was demolished; the Ordinance #1 ratios were applied and the project was replaced to comply with 50 percent of the bedrooms and 50 percent of the floor area demolished. Horn said the Park Avenue site contains 2 buildings, one with one bedroom and one with 4 units, 4 bedrooms. In 1991 the applicant proposed demolishing the multi- family building, not the single bedroom building. The city required 50 percent of the floor area and 50 percent of the demolished bedrooms. These were replaced by restoring the cottage and constructing an additional unit in the cottage and deed restricting these units to comply with Ordinance #1. Staff, the housing office and P 14 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 & Z found this application to comply with the intent and requirements of Ordinance #1. Horn told Council he met with Leslie Lamont on this project starting in March 1995 and worked on it for several months. Mayor Bennett noted that Ms. Lamont’s letter indicates only 1 building is being demolished. The applicants note that 2 buildings are being demolished. Horn said in May 1996, they submitted a land use application based on staff comments and support. This application proposes the demolition of 24 bedrooms, 9100 square feet, and proposes deed restricting an existing building with 12 units, 12 bedrooms which is 50 percent of the bedrooms demolished and 50 percent of the floor area. Horn said the applicants were disappointed that the planning director had taken a different interpretation after almost 15 months of work with staff than the one the applicants were working with. Horn said this interpretation is that the Day project is providing 33 percent of the 36 bedrooms and 40 percent of the floor area. Horn said there is a revised staff opinion on the 100 Park Avenue project, “In reevaluating the application, present staff determines the minimum replacement housing requirement for the proposed 5 unit free market GMQS exempt development to be 2.5 bedrooms, 50 percent of the existing bedrooms”. Horn said this is different than the interpretation made in 1991 and supported by staff and Boards at that time. Kaufman said the applicants feel the letter from Ms. Lamont confirming the recent staff interpretation and work with staff and applicant that will meet Ordinance #1. Kaufman said that interpretation is the one that shaped this project. Kaufman said the previous planning office position and meetings with staff lead to a reliance on an interpretation. Based on that, the applicant submitted an application. Kaufman said Aspen has a very complicated land use process; the community, applicants and staff gain protection by equity and fairness. Kaufman said modification of interpretations of Ordinance #1 should not be done in the context of this application. People that are just starting the process are the ones that new interpretations should apply to. Sunny Vann reminded Council in the late 1980’s, there was substantial construction of townhouses. Under the then growth management regulations, if a unit was torn down, an applicant had an automatic credit to build another one. Ordinance #1, 1990, was written to require mitigation when demolition of existing units occurred. Ordinance #1 dealt specifically with demolition because people were tearing things down to obtain credits and were not saving any units. Vann pointed out it is difficult to put enough free market units back on site to offset the cost of the units 15 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 that were torn down and the required replacement housing. There have been few Ordinance #1 applications to the city. Vann said this project proposes not to demolish all units but to deed restrict some to meet the 50 percent replacement requirement. Vann said staff has expanded the original concept of mitigating units that are actually demolished to include those units which are converted to deed restricted housing. This way, applicants are mitigating units that are demolished as well as those that are lost from the inventory by being deed restricted. Vann said this interpretation is inconsistent to what has been applied in the past. Vann said there is a history to the interpretation that dealt specifically with the mitigation of demolition. Vann said there is no precedence for that position in the past and it has not been applied to any of the projects that have come through the process. Councilwoman Richards said this is a very complicated issue with a lot of history. Councilwoman Richards suggested hearing from Council involved in the crafting of Ordinance #1. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to know if there are other projects in the works that might be affected and should there be more formalization of staff interpretations. Councilwoman Richards said this has the potential of lowering by 1/3 the standard for all future housing projects. Mayor Bennett said this is two separate issues; what are the laws and the intent of the laws, and what is the right thing to do. Mayor Bennett said the law is clear as it is called the housing replacement ordinance, and the way it is written is clear. The applicants went forward for 18 months on a staff interpretation. Mayor Bennett said he would like to hear more from Leslie Lamont because she refers to demolishing only the building near the river and also talking about gaining additional units. Mayor Bennett said this language is not consistent with the arguments presented by the applicants. Councilwoman Waggaman said she would like to table this and think about the issue presented by both sides. Councilwoman Waggaman said Council needs to stand behind their employees. Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see dates on when the plans were submitted, when the proposal was final. Councilman Marolt said he, too, would appreciate more time for consideration. Councilwoman Richards moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 9:35 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. 16 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 Councilwoman Richards moved to continue the Appeal of Interpretation of Ordinance #1, Housing Replacement; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #59, SERIES OF 1996 - Opposing State Amendments #11 and 13 Mayor Bennett read the resolution in full outlining the reasons Council is opposed to these two amendments. Jody McCabe, Aspen Historical Society, said the non- profits will be very heavily impacted by having to pay property taxes. Anne Chapman, Arts Council, said other non-profits will be indirectly affected. Many groups may have to abandon or turn their services over to governments. Ms. McCabe said their assessment would be more than 10 percent of their operating budget. Father Theophane, St. Benedict’s monastery, told Council their assessment will be $115,000 and there is no way the monastery can raise that amount annually. Father Theophane told Council the part of their monastery that is for profit, like the cookie operation, does pay taxes. Councilwoman Richards said the non-profits do create a value to this community. The city wants to support these organizations and to keep them in this community. Councilwoman Richards said this is a tax on all the members who support and donate to non-profit organizations. Councilwoman Waggaman moved to approve Resolution #59, Series of 1996; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS 1. Amy Margerum, city manager, reminded Council they were interested in meeting with HPC and discussing the entrance to town. The next HPC meeting is October 23 at 5 p.m. Councilmembers Richards and Waggaman said they would attend. 2. Amy Margerum, city manager, remind ed Council there is a joint budget meeting with the BOCC on human services on October 22 at 4 p.m. The next joint budget meeting with the county will be November 14 at 4 p.m. 17 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adjourn at 9:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Marolt. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 18 Aspen City Council Regular Meeting October 15, 1996 PROCLAMATION - Environmental Health Award to Tom Dunlop ........................ 1 CITIZEN COMMENTS ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ....................... 5 CONSENT CALENDAR ................................ ................................ ........................ 5 Minutes - September 3, 5, 24, 1996 ................................ ................................ ..... 7 Resolution #56, 1996 - Contract Approval Automated Parking Ticket Mgmt ....... 7 Ordinance #38, 1996 - Text Amendments - Land use Code Clarifications ............ 7 Resolution #60, 1996 - Holy Cross Easement for Water Treatment Plant ............. 7 Ordinance #39, 1996 - Bell Mountain Lodge GMQS Extension ........................... 7 Resolution #58, 1996 - Approving Expenditures from 1/2 Center Transportation Tax ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 7 Resolution #57, 1996 - Approving Ski Company 50th Anniversary Banners ........ 7 ORDINANCE #36, SERIES OF 1996 - Late Charges Utility Payments .................. 7 ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 1996 - Code Amendment - Veterinarian Clinic ..... 8 APPEAL OF INTERPRETATION ORDINANCE #1 HOUSING REPLACEMENT 12 RESOLUTION #59, SERIES OF 1996 - Opposing State Amendments #11 and 13 17 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ......... 17 19